Slashdot Mirror
eBay Denies New Design Is Broken, Blames Users
krick-zero writes "eBay recently rolled out a new page design. Many eBay sellers are reporting issues with missing description text, resulting in lost sales. Buyers are reporting the same intermittent issue, on multiple platforms, with multiple browsers. After complaining to eBay customer service, one user got this response: 'I have reviewed several of your listings using my computer and had several of my coworkers view your listings as well and we are seeing the complete listings. Many times when buyers are not able to see the whole description or just bits and pieces it is due to browser issues they are having. A lot of times if they simply clear out their cache and cookies or change browsers (i.e. change from Internet explorer to Firefox or vice versa) they no longer have this problem.'"
I've had similar problems and it always comes back to the javascript they are using. If I change the way the JS is allowed via AdBlock or NoScript, things start working... if I keep it at my normal settings, the descriptions disappear.
Expecting users to switch browsers or clear cache to see page text is absurd.
If users can't see description text, they have a bug in their application.
By the way. I'm not at all pleased with the new eBay design.
They think they're being all fancy, cute, and Web 2.0-like i'm sure.
And in the process... forgetting about the quality of the user experience and ease of use (which includes not having to switch browsers, clear cache, cookies, re-login, and other voodoo "self help" techniques), which basically are hallmarks of a low-quality, poorly done, poorly tested web site.
And straight up, that sucks, and shows unprofessional behavior on eBay's part IMO.
It's not the least bit hard to hire and train CSRs who won't blame the user for everything, and who'll actually help determine what's going wrong, and get the user in touch with someone to report the bugs....
Blame the user, or their choice of browser is the absolute worst thing they could possibly do. In a decade when standards-based is the norm, and REAL web-sites are tested and qualified with the major browsers, including IE7, IE8, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc, and any malfunction of the site is the site's problem, not just the complaining users' problem!
Excessive use of fragile and unreliable, non-standards-compliant Javascript? Check.
Excessive use of meaningless graphics, slowing browsing and usability but reducing the number of successful page changes by clients? Check.
Obvious uselessness for those with visual problems? Check.
Unnecessary re-arrangement of straightforward design to force a "new paradigm" as part of some advertising exec's "new vision"? Check.
No improvement in user experience or actual usable features added? Check.
Disable current generation of sniping tools, forcing them to hire engineers for at least 30 minutes work to update their clients? Check.
Driving people to the plain-text, plain-language, you can even rent cheap hookers there traffic of Craigslist? Check.
The problem here is there are open standards for web sites, published by the W3C. HTML4, CSS, DOM.
If eBay would follow the standards and perform some basic testing on the common browsers which all happen to be easily available for testing, they could assure the site would work for everyone.
They're going beyond the standards and trying to do some browser-specific scripting no doubt, or utilizing features that are buggy in some browsers and beyond the basic standard.
All this to try and be cute. And make their pages feel more dynamic.
If they weren't doing this, nobody would be complaining, noone's experience or ability to use the site for it's intended purpose would be getting degraded.
"No shit, Sherlock", but eBay's cure was worse than the disease.
With the "new hotness", I now have pictures that obscure the auction listings when I'm scrolling through items because Javashit thinks I'm hovering over the image (bad! stop doing that! I didn't ask you to do that!). If I find an item of interest and want to look at the pictures, I get a pop-up window (WTF?) with a slide-show-like sidebar (worse!), and since the whole shebang requires Javashit to display anything, and that very same script denies the ability to right-click-saveAs the image, it's now considerably more difficult to actually compare the image of a product with a reference image.
For that matter, it's now practically impossible to compare two images of the same item with each other. When eBay used URLs that pointed to .JPGs, you could middle-click them to pop the image open in a new tab for viewing or saving. With the "new hotness", you're middle-clicking javascript:void(), and nothing happens.
None of which addresses the root cause of the problem: 99% of the time, it's a crappy cell phone picture taken at 640x480, or generic clipart from the item's manufacturer, where you're lucky if it's 320x200. That's not eBay's fault, that's the sellers' fault.
If you want to solve the problems with images, stop hiding them behind Javascript-reliant slide-shows. Less Web 2.0 crap, more usability testing. Fucking web designers. It's no longer an auction listing site, it's a web technology demo. Hey, web designers, maybe if you stopped this continual race of trying to keep your resumes well-padded and buzzword-compliant at the expense of end-user usability, your customers might not leave you in bewilderment and disgust, and you might not need to hand your resumes out as often.
broken by design
No, people need to adapt to the technology. As technology gets better and smarter, people need to change their way of thinking and become better and smarter themselves in order to use this much more complicated technology. The Chinese had the write philosophy by sculpting the foot to fit the shoe.
Don't argue with customer service. There's a saying in the industry; "Customer service is always right". Don't argue with the people who are paid to help you. Listen to your superiors and clear your cache instead of complaining, because complainers generally tend to get hung-up on and ignored.
Their new layout has a 100% feedback and hundreds of people have it as "A++++++++++++++!!!"
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
I went to a presentation a few years ago by a pair of eBay's senior engineers where they were discussing their architecture and technology. They explained their Java-on-Windows two-tier architecture (web front-ends which are handling all of the business logic, database backends, little-to-no caching, etc). They explained how they have pools of servers for handling different page types (i.e. search vs. gateway vs. help, etc) and how they sometimes have brownouts in some pools because they mis-predicted the number of servers they needed in that pool.
During the Q&A, somebody asked them, "what's the biggest challenge that you guys face?"; the response was "fitting enough information in the browser's cookie... 4k really isn't enough information for us". A follow-up question was asked about why they didn't just use a session-id key and store as much data as they want in a database or cache, etc. They basically admitted that they didn't have the technical strength to build something like that at their scale.
I asked them why they allow users to post JavaScript in their posts as it basically turns all of eBay into a cross-site scripting bug. I know for a fact that sellers have been able to include JS in their posts which can record the max-bid of the buyer. Sure, it's against the TOS, but only if they catch it. Their response was that it's what their customers (read sellers) want.
The point I'm getting to is that eBay, despite having one of the most popular websites in the world employs some bass-ackward technical solutions and business policies. What's reported in this doesn't surprise me at all.
I would agree with that.
But a lot of people seem to prefer keeping the flash, even if it compromises function a bit.
The Google home page design philosophy seems to be the exception to the rule, most businesses follow the Yahoo philosophy, meaning more flash = better, sometimes even better than working 100% correctly.
Wanting things to just work and be simple, fast, and efficient as possible seems to be a totally nerdy/geeky thing.
Most of the marketing and business people who make actual decisions seem to think flashiness is really really important, even if it means the site's coding will be much more complex, a good bit slower/less efficient, more memory hungry, and have some bugs.
"This is the only reason I can think of for some of the upgrades I've seen at major websites the past year or so - websites that were previously functional, easy to use, fast, etc. and are now buggy, overladen with crap, etc."
Here's looking at you, /.
Yep:
- Floppies ranged in size from 8 inch to 5 inch to 3.5 inch to 3 inch
- Computers were available from Atari, Apple, Commodore, Texas Instruments and not compatible with one another
- Movies might be sold on videotape, or videorecord, or laserdisc, or film
- Music might be sold on records, or 45s, or 78s, or compact cassettes, or 8-tracks
- Game systems were Odyssey, Atari,Intellivision, Magnavox
- VCRs could be either VHS or Betamax or Umatic
Any view that the 70s were somehow free of format problems is merely nostalgia. There were plenty of of problems with formats.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
With eBay it's always the sellers' fault. Power Sellers have dropped by the thousands, including myself, because of eBay policies. Starting 1.5 to 2 years ago they decided it was time to screw sellers to make buyers happy.
Hahahaha. That's hilarious. Have you ever tried to settle a dispute with a seller as a buyer? The hoops you have to jump through are in my view ridiculous ESPECIALLY when you use Paypal. I closed my Paypal account years ago after I had an issue with an item that had obviously been soiled, broken, repackaged and re-shrink-wrapped. They'd only look into it if i had an expert on the item write a letter on a company letter head, and if I'd just fax that internationally. Yeah for a $28 item which I had already sent back, I'm going to spend time and money finding an expert when there was no expertise required in working out that it was a broken, soiled, repackaged piece of crud. But technically they were honouring their obligation and protecting my purchase. Meanwhile the seller threatened to call in police and lawyers because I left feedback that he claimed was defaming him. (Paypal feedback is a joke). Then he tried to pressure me to use a mediation service that was in my opinion completely biased against me.
Ebay and Paypal make it hard for everyone but Ebay and Paypal. The blame lies elsewhere. They're not fussy about on whom. If you're a crook you can game the system as either buyer or seller. Not to mention the bargains dried up long ago. In fact I stopped buying things on Ebay years ago. I feel like every purchase is a bad gamble.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Have you thought that maybe both are true ?
Ebay tells the seller "You're in the wrong, we're taking the money back"
Then Ebay tells the buyer "Tough. You're in the wrong. Money gone."
Profit !